Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Copyright
  • Advertising Policy
  • Legal Disclaimer
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers, Leeds, Manchester & Birmingham. 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, London.
Browse: Home » 2014 » February » 13

YOUR CHANCE TO COMMENT ON THE IMPACT OF THE JACKSON REFORMS: CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL CONFERENCE

February 13, 2014 · by gexall · in Costs, Costs budgeting, Relief from sanctions, Rule Changes, Useful links

I have heard a lot comments on the impact of the Jackson Reforms, (some of it unprintable).  The Civil Justice Council is holding a conference in March on the impact of the reforms and is inviting “position papers”. I would…

CASE STRUCK OUT BECAUSE OF A FAILURE TO ARRANGE A TELEPHONE HEARING: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT AND WHAT WOULD HAPPEN NOW?

February 13, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Relief from sanctions

JONES –V- WEALTH MANAGEMENT (UK) LTD (2014) Ch D (Arnold J) 12/02/2014 This case is reported briefly on Lawtel today. It concerns an application for relief from sanctions in insolvency proceedings. The relief from sanctions application was made prior to…

THE DANGERS OF SERVING BY E-MAIL: A WORKING EXAMPLE

February 13, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Relief from sanctions, Serving documents

A recent post  looked at potential problems with serving documents by e-mail. That this is a very real issue is shown by a report of a decision sent to me by counsel.  The full details of the case are withheld. …

MORE ON ORDERS ALLOWING THE PARTIES TO EXTEND TIME BY AGREEMENT

February 13, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Relief from sanctions

It appears that the proposed change to allow the parties to vary orders by consent only applies to clinical negligence cases. Lexis Law Dispute Resolution report  The Judicial Office has released this statement: “A draft amendment to the clinical negligence…

SENDING DOCUMENTS TO THE COURT BY E-MAIL: THE PRACTICE DIRECTION AND POTENTIAL PROBLEM AREAS

February 13, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs budgeting, Relief from sanctions

An earlier post about the problems of serving documents by e-mail led to a flurry of comments on twitter about similar issues in relation to filing documents at court . I am awaiting some reports of cases where the lodging…

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2023. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission from this blog's author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Gordon Exall and Civil Litigation Brief with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 31,008 other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • REPEAT SERIES ON WHAT THEY DON’T TEACH YOU AT LAW SCHOOL III: THRIVE & SURVIVE: (UPDATED) GUIDANCE FROM NEW SOUTH WALES
  • COST BITES 52: “WE WANT IT ALL AND WE WANT IT NOW”: COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION FOR A SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS
  • “INTERROGATION” OF A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS EXCESSIVE: COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT TODAY
  • COST BITES 51: CASE FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE FAST TRACK NOT SMALL CLAIMS TRACK: DECISION UPHELD ON APPEAL
  • PROVING THINGS 247: A NON-CONVICTION CANNOT IMPOSE A CIVIL DUTY OF CARE: CLAIMANT FAILS IN PERSONAL INJURY ACTION

Top Posts & Pages

  • COST BITES 52: "WE WANT IT ALL AND WE WANT IT NOW": COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT'S APPLICATION FOR A SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS
  • REPEAT SERIES ON WHAT THEY DON’T TEACH YOU AT LAW SCHOOL III: THRIVE & SURVIVE: (UPDATED) GUIDANCE FROM NEW SOUTH WALES
  • "INTERROGATION" OF A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS EXCESSIVE: COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT TODAY
  • MAKING A MISTAKE ON THE DAMAGES CLAIM PORTAL IS NOT NECESSARILY AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: AN APPLICATION THAT PROVED COSTLY FOR THE DEFENDANT
  • COST BITES 51: CASE FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE FAST TRACK NOT SMALL CLAIMS TRACK: DECISION UPHELD ON APPEAL

Blogroll

  • Coronavirus: Guidance for lawyers and businesses
  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 14th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • Website of 4 – 5 Gray's Inn Square
  • Website of 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, Catastrophic Injury Group
  • www.Bailii.org

Archives

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy

Copyright © 2023 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by WordPress and Origin